Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
>> So ideally what we do here is simply in line with how we plan to make all
>> APIs that accept strings work (with exceptions).
>
> Yup, that's exactly what I've been arguing (both for this and for
> other APIs). I think we should not have [Null=...] or [Undefined=...]
> in there at all for now. Instead put some wording in that says that
> we're doing whatever the default is for WebIDL, but that that isn't
> fully locked down as of yet (since the spec is still a WD).
I have now removed both the [Null] and [Undefined] extended attributes
from the IDL and added a note advising implementers that WebIDL defines
how to handle null and undefined.
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/selectors-api/#nodeselector
Given the current WebIDL draft, this means they stringify to "null" and
"undefined", respectively.
--
Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
http://lachy.id.au/http://www.opera.com/